Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J.), rendered September 2, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 8 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the credible evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury's determinations concerning credibility. The credible evidence clearly established that defendant entered the victim's apartment with intent to commit a crime and not for the purpose of obtaining shelter.
The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458-459, 611 N.Y.S.2d 118, 633 N.E.2d 472), and the People did not exceed the bounds of the ruling. Since the ruling permitted the People to inquire into the underlying facts of certain convictions, the People properly elicited the manner in which each crime was committed.
The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting defendant's arrest photograph into evidence. The photograph depicted defendant's appearance at the time of his arrest, which was inconsistent with his defense that he was a homeless person seeking shelter, and there was nothing prejudicial about the photograph (see, People v. Bristow, 272 A.D.2d 55, 707 N.Y.S.2d 318).
Defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of his mandatory minimum sentence requires preservation (People v. Ingram, 67 N.Y.2d 897, 899, 501 N.Y.S.2d 804, 492 N.E.2d 1220), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the sentence was not unconstitutional.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: October 10, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)